partner state as platonian illusion
https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme... Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept, 1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations 2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself. 3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality. To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however, Michel social praxis apart from
2015-08-10 16:10 GMT+02:00 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>:
2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.
It has to be noted that the foundation of Rojava comunes is based on Abdullah Ocalan recent writings, which are inspired by Murray Bookchin ones. http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/
I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! Orsan
On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme...
Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal
I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up
I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,
1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations
2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.
3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality.
To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,
Michel social praxis apart from _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
here is a very broad possible definition of the state a collective institution in charge of a territory and population, that has the capacity to enforce rules and norms IS THAT TOO BROAD ? the important debate for me is with those that absolutely deny the need for such a body, and believe that everything can be done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups so how would this be applied to say chiapas and rojava both these regions are administered by very democratic local and regional councils, in my understanding, but they can only exist because there was a failed state, which allowed this self-organisation and regional armies to protect them would this be a partner state, to the degree that the local and regional councils , which for me are state forms, enable and empower autonomous citizenry and economic activities by the population; I believe this to be so, hence, I believe these quality as partner state institutions in my understanding but these are not typical circumstances, i.e. in which war has destroyed the capacity of the existing state to impose coercion, for a considerable period of time, this is hard to imagine in many other countries, including europe, both in terms of objective realities (non-failed states) and in terms of the will of the people (will to radically abolish existing state form) Michel On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! Orsan
On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme...
Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal
I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up
I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,
1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations
2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.
3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality.
To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,
Michel social praxis apart from
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
I think there is a confusion here between the state ability to enforce rules internally, and the use of force to protect. As I understand Zapatistas, the collective institution does not interfere with local consensus, rules and norms are only agreed locally. I would prefer to see a definition that rests on recognition by the people that they are part of a state, rather than on the capacity of the state to enforce rules and norms. But really no need to get hung up on definitions. We can define as we want. The debate for Michel seems to be whether such a project/state could exist without the capacity to enforce norms and rules, internally. I think this is a really important discussion, whether there is a need for an overarching body to enforce norms and rules. So here is an example of a something 'done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups'. Existing in spite of the state from which they have to protect themselves by force. And there is no reason that such an autonomous state, if you want to call it that, based on conscious recognition, could not exist in other situations. Hard to imagine- yes, but not impossible. Whether there is a need for an overarching body in the transition phase, when traditional values are being challenged, may well differ from place to place according to the education, commitment and development of the citizens involved. Anna
On 11 Aug 2015, at 11:16, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
here is a very broad possible definition of the state
a collective institution in charge of a territory and population, that has the capacity to enforce rules and norms
IS THAT TOO BROAD ?
the important debate for me is with those that absolutely deny the need for such a body, and believe that everything can be done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups
so how would this be applied to say chiapas and rojava
both these regions are administered by very democratic local and regional councils, in my understanding,
but they can only exist because there was a failed state, which allowed this self-organisation and regional armies to protect them
would this be a partner state,
to the degree that the local and regional councils , which for me are state forms, enable and empower autonomous citizenry and economic activities by the population; I believe this to be so, hence, I believe these quality as partner state institutions in my understanding
but these are not typical circumstances, i.e. in which war has destroyed the capacity of the existing state to impose coercion,
for a considerable period of time, this is hard to imagine in many other countries, including europe, both in terms of objective realities (non-failed states) and in terms of the will of the people (will to radically abolish existing state form)
Michel
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote: I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! Orsan
On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme...
Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal
I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up
I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,
1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations
2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.
3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality.
To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,
Michel social praxis apart from _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
thank you Anna, my definition applies internally, i.e. a body that is capable to enforce the minimal agreed civilisational norms for a particular territory (say, forbidding executions, corporal punishments, wife beating, including towards those communities that believe this is acceptable) of course, by definition, a partner state would be fully democratic and participatory, but 'prefigurative partner state experiences' need not conform to an abstract ideal, just go into that direction On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
I think there is a confusion here between the state ability to enforce rules internally, and the use of force to protect. As I understand Zapatistas, the collective institution does not interfere with local consensus, rules and norms are only agreed locally.
I would prefer to see a definition that rests on recognition by the people that they are part of a state, rather than on the capacity of the state to enforce rules and norms.
But really no need to get hung up on definitions. We can define as we want.
The debate for Michel seems to be whether such a project/state could exist without the capacity to enforce norms and rules, internally. I think this is a really important discussion, whether there is a need for an overarching body to enforce norms and rules.
So here is an example of a something 'done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups'. Existing in spite of the state from which they have to protect themselves by force. And there is no reason that such an autonomous state, if you want to call it that, based on conscious recognition, could not exist in other situations. Hard to imagine- yes, but not impossible.
Whether there is a need for an overarching body in the transition phase, when traditional values are being challenged, may well differ from place to place according to the education, commitment and development of the citizens involved.
Anna
On 11 Aug 2015, at 11:16, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
here is a very broad possible definition of the state
a collective institution in charge of a territory and population, that has the capacity to enforce rules and norms
IS THAT TOO BROAD ?
the important debate for me is with those that absolutely deny the need for such a body, and believe that everything can be done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups
so how would this be applied to say chiapas and rojava
both these regions are administered by very democratic local and regional councils, in my understanding,
but they can only exist because there was a failed state, which allowed this self-organisation and regional armies to protect them
would this be a partner state,
to the degree that the local and regional councils , which for me are state forms, enable and empower autonomous citizenry and economic activities by the population; I believe this to be so, hence, I believe these quality as partner state institutions in my understanding
but these are not typical circumstances, i.e. in which war has destroyed the capacity of the existing state to impose coercion,
for a considerable period of time, this is hard to imagine in many other countries, including europe, both in terms of objective realities (non-failed states) and in terms of the will of the people (will to radically abolish existing state form)
Michel
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! Orsan
On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme...
Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal
I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up
I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,
1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations
2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.
3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality.
To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,
Michel social praxis apart from
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
participants (4)
-
anna＠shsh.co.uk -
Marco Giustini -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan Senalp